Ron Paul: This birth control debate is just “silly”

posted at 1:55 pm on March 2, 2012 by Tina Korbe

In an interview with Piers Morgan last night, Ron Paul called the debate about the Obama administration’s contraception mandate “silly.” Refusing to discuss the mandate in terms of either “women’s health” or “sexual morality,” Paul kept the focus squarely on the freedom-breaching nature of Obamacare in general. In this instance, Paul, who in his first career as an OBGYN delivered hundreds of babies and was paid to care for “women’s health,” possesses a special credibility — and his classic libertarian response was a model for how to handle the issue for those who don’t want to discuss the cultural underpinnings and implications of the administration’s mandate.

The birth control debate has been particularly interesting for the way it has both united conservative and progressive religious individuals against the Obama administration’s breach of the freedom of religion and has divided secular and religious conservatives over whether to revisit the seemingly long-ago settled question of what sexual norms society seeks to promote.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

classic libertarian response was a model for how to handle the issue for those who don’t want to discuss the cultural underpinnings and implications of the administration’s mandate.

“Missed it by that much, Chief” since the cultural underpinnings and implications of the administration’s mandate literally attack all Liberty. THE POINT remains that legislating morality produces a lucrative criminal atmosphere for black market organized crime, without having forced the population to be morally pure or “good people”.

You should venture over to read what ajacksonian posted recently at dumb looks still free, “The Road Ahead.”

Yes, the family unit matters to civilization, as do our natural, unalienable rights. But we’re not going to “learn” those at school. Nor is the Republican Party about to protect our civil liberties, btw, that would include the right to protect life and for states to prosecute those whose crimes injure others.

Tina Korbe, if you do not know that’s Ron Paul’s libertarian position (to avoid legislating federal laws where state laws have the constitutional authority and responsibility to respond in matters regarding bodily harm) then why presume to be an authority? Admit your mistake, and bias. Why give the federal government more permission to dictate our lives, thoughts, as if owning our bodies? It’s always a mistake to presume that another federal law is going to only be used to help protect good people with good intentions, for our own good, “for the children”. pfft

Ignorance by choice is stupidity, Don. Stupid is as stupid does. Don’t stay stuck on stupid. Demagoguery is bigotry.

Give yourself a Ron Paul tutorial, and read what he’s written (available @ Mises.org). AT LEAST visit his “Ron Paul 2012″ official website to breeze through his “issues” platform. Note well his consistently strong pro-life position on ABORTION, and on Faith, since you’re in the dark.

OF COURSE Ron Paul not only understands, but lives by the ideal that “conscience is the most sacred of all property”.

A smart libertarian would say “It’s not about birth conrol, or abortion, it’s about the 1st Amendment”.

Gosh, I’m beginning to hate the right as much as the left. What a bunch of weasels!

1000 Breitbarts are needed and the only one is dead.

Schadenfreude on March 2, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Good grief! What is wrong with people that they fall right into the trap the left set for them? I don’t know what Romney/Santorum or Newt has said about this, but at least R Paul gave them the answer they needed.

I shut Hannity off today and most of Rush, what with their constant giving this garbage air time!!

No wonder they call the Republican Party the stupid party!!! No Duh!!
(no offense Flora:-)

In a global economy, like it or not, non-interventionism is not an option. If we close our bases and bring all our troops home, do you believe there will be no consequences?

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:39 PM

You used the correct term. Well done.

I agree that some interventionism is probably required. But the bigger problem is clearly too much foreign adventurism. We need to reign it in, although (IMHO) not to the extent Ron Paul seems to advocate.

This is the Issue with this HHS Mandate, nothing else. Everything else they are talking about is just to muddy the water.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Not sure where I said I interpreted James Madison as being interventionist.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Does that mean that you accept that Madison was non-interventionist? I’m really not trying to be a jerk here, just trying to see how you reconcile the founders’ views with our current interventionist policies.

I agree that some interventionism is probably required. But the bigger problem is clearly too much foreign adventurism. We need to reign it in, although (IMHO) not to the extent Ron Paul seems to advocate.

EddieC on March 2, 2012 at 5:02 PM

We’re actually not so far apart on this point. I don’t want to see any more wars/occupations/kinetic military actions. I simply think that the concept of closing down our bases and removing our troops would have a significant deleterious effect on multiple levels.

The first would be on those who actually support our presence in their country, as they would likely be subjugated(if not killed outright).

The second would be from a world image perspective, as we would be seen as “retreating”, no matter what the actual situation was, and that weakness would make us a very tempting target to all sorts of factions and governments throughout the world.

The third would be the necessary buildup of military infrastructure in this country to accommodate the sudden influx of military personnel and hardware(which would mean nuclear saturation attacks on the US would suddenly be top priority, as opposed to first strikes occurring overseas, away from our population centers).

The fourth would be the economic impact in each of the countries we would be leaving, as our bases and soldiers would no longer be purchasing goods and services from the locals.

The fifth, and most evident in my opinion, would be the loss of our strategic advantage in numerous areas throughout the world. We can’t even get a missile shield up with bases scattered across Europe and the Middle East. You think we’ll ever get one up if we have no ability to protect it? You think we’ll actually be able to rely on our allies to protect it?

Now, I’m not happy with any of these situations, but I consider them inevitable consequences of our departure from our current military matrix. That Ron Paul, and to a larger extent many of his paleocon followers, seem either uninterested or unwilling to talk about these possibilities before they put forward their plans to gut our strategic layout, is probably the biggest reason I would not support him for president. As a domestic issues guy, apart from pandering to illegal aliens by pushing the liberal narrative that evil Republicans hate them, I think he’s super. I would love to see him appointed to the Fed, the Treasury, even Secretary of the Interior. I just don’t want him as commander-in-chief.

Maybe you shouldn’t call people “Paultards”. I happen to have a disabled daughter and it bugs the heck out of me that that term is thrown around so capriciously by some here. You would think that calling Paul supporter “lunatics” “fascists” or “anti-semites” would be sufficient, but apparently it is necessary to refer to “retards” in order to really get your point across.

And no, neo-cons are statists themselves, though they don’t realize it, and are less distinguishable from communists than libertarians. Commies were pretty pro-invading everyone too. And I wouldn’t have used that term to describe you, but this “Paultard” and “Nazi” BS needs to stop.

Ron Paul called the debate about the Obama administration’s contraception mandate “silly.”

The more conservative side is taking a stand against Obama’s invasion of medicine. The liberals are pushing forward.

Cue Ron Paul.

Paul calls both sides ‘silly’. The classic Paul maneuver. The game is on, liberty is on the line… and here comes Paul, being used by the media again, to tarnish conservatives with his broad brush. No wonder he’s not been able to accomplish anything in congress.

This is when Paul could make a devastating case against the overreach and totalitarianism of the Obama administration. But, a slave to his own jealousy, Paul has to tarnish the conservatives in the battle.

Sadly, Paul’s supporters will trumpet this as another example of his purity and the genius of his ‘strategy’.

Good post. I disagree with your conclusions, but at least you explained why you feel the way you do about foreign policy. Might actually lead to a real discussion instead of the ridiculous name-calling that goes on around here.

Oh, that’s right. You’re a paleocon. For you, closing all our bases and bringing all our troops home will have no consequences whatsoever.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Nonsense. Doing so will have consequences… some good, some bad.

Now, explain to me the cost-benefit analysis in which having a foreign policy in which the US is the sole guarantor of global peace is better than one in which the nations of the world fend for themselves. Because the looming bankruptcy of this country is dragging us in the direction of the latter.

This is when Paul could make a devastating case against the overreach and totalitarianism of the Obama administration. But, a slave to his own jealousy, Paul has to tarnish the conservatives in the battle.

shinty on March 2, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Conservatives tarnish themselves when they talk about federal control of contraception, especially when they are on record as having supported the biggest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ.

Maybe you shouldn’t call people “Paultards”. I happen to have a disabled daughter and it bugs the heck out of me that that term is thrown around so capriciously by some here. You would think that calling Paul supporter “lunatics” “fascists” or “anti-semites” would be sufficient, but apparently it is necessary to refer to “retards” in order to really get your point across.

And no, neo-cons are statists themselves, though they don’t realize it, and are less distinguishable from communists than libertarians. Commies were pretty pro-invading everyone too. And I wouldn’t have used that term to describe you, but this “Paultard” and “Nazi” BS needs to stop.

iwasbornwithit on March 2, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Listen, I sympathize with your situation. You may not believe me but I really do. That being said, my wife has cancer. I don’t use her as a shield from criticism. I had no way of knowing your situation, so it wasn’t meant personally.

I’m guessing you never served in the military. It’s usually the one’s who have never served that are pushing for war. Your cursing displays your lack of thought process and your weak mind. You would be the first one digging for excuses if you were asked to fight a war, you talk tough but you’re weak. I bet you never ask youself why Paul gets the most contributions form active duty military or you just pretend that fact doesn’t exist. You can’t even think for your self. If you don’t hear it on the radio or Fox News then you can’t comprehend it. You are one of those fake conservatives who preach the Constitution when it serves your agenda but throw it to the wind when it doesn’t fit what talk radio is peddling. I’m sure you say you love the founding fathers but ignore their foreign policy beliefs. If you educated yourself about their foreign policy positions then you would realize it is where Ron Paul seeks his guidance. I bet you’re one of those who say that the foreign policy of the founders is out dated and does not work in todays world…the same excust the left uses to push their agenda…you’re no better than they are. You are the definition the the Establishment…you are an ignorant pawn. Go ahead and curse me out now because I know you can’t put a rational thought together without cursing.

Listen, I sympathize with your situation. You may not believe me but I really do. That being said, my wife has cancer. I don’t use her as a shield from criticism. I had no way of knowing your situation, so it wasn’t meant personally.

catmman on March 2, 2012 at 6:10 PM

I am sorry to hear about your wife and I don’t doubt your sincerity. I am not using her as a shield from criticism, just that adding the “tard” to the Paul is not just offensive to me personally, I just think it is wrong in general. I don’t like criticism, but I just wanted to take a break to point this out because “tard” gets thrown around too much here and I think it’s beneath the dignity of the discussion here and perhaps inadvertently inflammatory.

So I’m not trying to beat you over the head with my daughter’s situation and I don’t think you’re a bad person because of it. You probably just didn’t think about it and that’s cool. And FWIW, I will pray for your wife.

We’re actually not so far apart on this point. I don’t want to see any more wars/occupations/kinetic military actions. I simply think that the concept of closing down our bases and removing our troops would have a significant deleterious effect on multiple levels.

The first would be on those who actually support our presence in their country, as they would likely be subjugated(if not killed outright).

The second would be from a world image perspective, as we would be seen as “retreating”, no matter what the actual situation was, and that weakness would make us a very tempting target to all sorts of factions and governments throughout the world.

The third would be the necessary buildup of military infrastructure in this country to accommodate the sudden influx of military personnel and hardware(which would mean nuclear saturation attacks on the US would suddenly be top priority, as opposed to first strikes occurring overseas, away from our population centers).

The fourth would be the economic impact in each of the countries we would be leaving, as our bases and soldiers would no longer be purchasing goods and services from the locals.

The fifth, and most evident in my opinion, would be the loss of our strategic advantage in numerous areas throughout the world. We can’t even get a missile shield up with bases scattered across Europe and the Middle East. You think we’ll ever get one up if we have no ability to protect it? You think we’ll actually be able to rely on our allies to protect it?

Now, I’m not happy with any of these situations, but I consider them inevitable consequences of our departure from our current military matrix. That Ron Paul, and to a larger extent many of his paleocon followers, seem either uninterested or unwilling to talk about these possibilities before they put forward their plans to gut our strategic layout, is probably the biggest reason I would not support him for president. As a domestic issues guy, apart from pandering to illegal aliens by pushing the liberal narrative that evil Republicans hate them, I think he’s super. I would love to see him appointed to the Fed, the Treasury, even Secretary of the Interior. I just don’t want him as commander-in-chief.

MadisonConservative on March 2, 2012 at 5:21 PM

1) Not our problem. I think you withdraw in a way that minimizes those consequences if that is possible and offer asylum to those supporters in the US, but that is not a reason in and of itself to stay. Besides, the people that “support” us face that threat whether we are there or not.

2) This may be your weakest point. I think that our standing has been damaged in the world by all of our foreign adventures. Plus, I really don’t think that there is anyone that really wants to pick a fight with the US.

3) Great. Lots of jobs for folks here instead of overseas. Not to mention that all the money that the troops earn stays in our economy instead of overseas economies. There will be a cost with respect to moving our troops back here, but it will cost far less to have our troops here in the long run and will also invigorate the economies around existing or future US bases. If we are going to spend all this money on defense, I don’t see anything wrong with our economies being the primary beneficiaries of defense largesse, instead of foreign countries.

I really don’t get your reasoning on the nuclear strategy. If any country had the ability and the desire to launch nuclear strikes against our overseas troops, they sure as hell would already be willing to make those strikes against the US mainland. I don’t know where you are getting your analysis here as this is the first time that I have heard this.

4) Forget what I said in number 2 about that being your weakest argument. I REALLY don’t care about what happens to foreign economies when we are no longer there. They should be kissing our feet and throwing flowers at us as we leave for all of the economic benefits that they have received while we were there. If they are unable to support themselves without our bases, that is their problem. It is certainly not the US taxpayers responsibility to ensure that foreign economies won’t suffer when we leave.

5) You only mentioned one example where our strategic advantage would be hurt. Missile defense might be your strongest point, but I think that this could be accomplished with a MUCH smaller presence. You don’t need entire armored divisions in Europe to man the missile defense systems.

The debate is not silly. It has legs and it will be remembered as people get more and more pushed in the corner by gas prices, job losses, home devaluations, and the arrogance of the elites

Yeah, Obama is using it as a diversion from the Obamacare encroachments on liberty, but he is stupidly doing it by putting a spotlight on privileged scholarship girls going to 50K universities demanding 3000 from their provider so they can hump between classes. I hope Obama makes more calls of condolences to scholarship females whose kitty will shrivel if they dont get a yearly 3K for safe sex

I cant tell you what folk in my crashing neighborhood think of girls getting scholaships to 50K universities and whining about sexual fulfillment subsidies. I know young people who did their best to have a baby so they could get food stamps because they were having trouble buying food. Baby is here, and food is now available

Someone said she will be forgotten, but video never dies. Her greed has been immortalized and will replay later

Not sure if anybody has covered this angle yet in this post, so hoepfully i’m not covering overly familiar ground. I think that Ron Paul understands that he will never be president. He is an older man. He has a son that has shown significant talent in the political arena.

I find it unlikely that he expects to win the presidency, or even the Republican Party’s nomination. He is concerened with his historical legacy, setting an example to his son Rand, and bringing attention and understanding to the ideas he holds.

I’m sure that Ron Paul understands that the Republicans have far more similar views to him than the Democrats. But Ron Paul also understands that the current Republicans and their ideas will not lead the country to prosperity, or its citizens to freedom. He made a strategy call years ago to not pull his punches when attacking Republicans as well as Democrats. This is an easy call to make when you think that helping the Republicans beat the Democrats will only delay disaster by several decades to a century. He sees both paths forward as wrong and is presenting a third. Besides he takes punches from both sides so its only natural to expect him to bite back.